So the dissent gets at this, but the majority's holding in the immunity case is that if Trump wants to knock over a liquor store (commit crimes as a private citizen) then we have to be able to prosecute that.
But if he orders the FBI to seize the liquor store, confiscate everything in it, and arrest the clerk (use the immense power of the federal government to commit crimes), he must be immune.
It's completely ass backwards. The danger of a president committing crimes as an individual is nothing compared to him using the government for criminal ends. The very things that we should be most concerned about a corrupt president doing are the things he can't be punished for.
and since he will definitionally only be prosecuted by a future president, and that future president definitionally has access to all clearances and executive privileges and relevant executive branch documents relating to policy, SCOTUS' whole argument that this intrudes on him is just a wet fish
Trying to take apart the fatwas of John Roberts with reason and logic is a category error.
Roberts’s arguments at times attempt to imitate the appearance of reason and logic, but that is a self conscious illusion. His argument is raw force and need to be met in the same way.
I mean for myself it’s the ‘tism. I am fucking allergic to guile.
It’s the reason I was attracted to commercial law and fucking hate con law. Con law is transparently bullshit. It nauseates me.
